1868.] On the History of the Burma Race. 97 



meng-nan. Alimg-tsi-thu yielded to his entreaties and gave him an 

 army, said to consist of one hundred thousand Pyiis, and one hundred 

 thousand Takings. After one repulse the army was successful. The 

 usurper who occupied the throne of Arakan, Meng Ba-di, was slain, and 

 Let-ya-meng-nan was restored to the throne of his ancestors.* This 



* In the history of Arakan this event is stated to have occurred in the year 

 465. The present Maha Ra-dza-Weng appears to consider the year 480 as the 

 correct time. A Burmese stone inscription which was discovered at Buddha 

 Gaya and of which a facsimile is given in the 20th volume of the Asiatic Re- 

 searches, confirms the fact related in the Arakanese and Burmese histories, of 

 the restoration of Let-ya-meng-nan (called Pyu-ta-thein-meng) to his coun- 

 try by the king of Pu-gan. But there is a strange uncertainty as to the dates 

 recorded in the inscription. General Cunningham has some remarks on this 

 question in his Archaeological survey report, dated 3rd June, 1862. I have not 

 seen the facsimile taken by General Cunningham, my present remarks therefore 

 apply to that published in the 20th volume of the Researches. The two dates 

 in lines 11 and 12 of the inscription, have been read by Prinsep and Cunning* 

 ham as 667 and 668. Colonel Burney, who first translated the inscription, 

 agreed with the Burmese literati in reading them 467 and 468. The latter no 

 doubt were induced to do so, lest their national history should be impugned. 

 Regarding the second date, there can, I think, be no doubt. It must be read as 

 660, not as 668. It will be found that a 4, a 6, an 8, and also a cipher, fortu- 

 nately occur elsewhere in the inscription. In the second line is a 4 rudely 

 engraved, but the same in form as the modern figure. The Burmese literati, 

 who gave the copy of the inscription in the modern character, have omitted' 

 the figure, and given the number four in writing. A 6 occurs in the eleventh 

 line of the original, meaning the sixth day of the week. In the translation 

 this has been rendered Friday. The figure 4 in the second line is utterly un- 

 like either of the figures in the second date, which I read as 660. The two 

 first figures are very like the undoubted 6 in the eleventh line. The last figure 

 is similar to the undoubted cipher in the eleventh line, being the record of & the 

 10th day of the month. So much for the second date. In the first date there 

 has apparently been some error on the part of the engraver. The first figure 

 in that date is really a 4 reversed. It has not the least resemblance to & a 6. 

 The second figure is a rude 6, with an adjunct, large and clumsy, instead of the 

 small stroke added to the 6, which stands for Friday, so that it almost looks 

 like an additional figure between the 6 and 7. The last figure is undoubtedly 7. 

 I therefore read this date as 467. The first figure as it stands is not a 4.' 

 Turn the paper upside down and it is 4. The engraver only could account for 

 this vagary. The question now is, how can the dates 467 and 660, thus placed 

 together in the inscription, be reconciled with the object for which the inscrip- 

 tion was written ? The Burmese language, especially as it was written five or 

 six hundred years ago, is very elliptical, and it is frequently necessary to 

 guess at the meaning attempted to be conveyed. In the translation of the 

 inscription in the Researches, the idea is conveyed that the temple of Buddha 

 Gaya was rebuilt in 467 or say 667, and that the religious ceremonies, ap- 

 parently of consecration, followed in the next year. Certainly at first sight the 

 inscription appears to mean this. But it is not necessarily so. And if the second 

 date is 660 and not 668, it cannot be so. I take the inscription then to jump 

 over long periods cf time. It first recounts how the temple had been built by 

 Asoka. It was destroyed and repaired more than once at long intervals of 

 time. Then came the latest work of the kind, and it was rebuilt under the 

 immediate assistance of the king of Arakan, Pya-ta-thein-meng, called also 

 Let-ya-meng nan. This rebuilding occurred in the year, Burmese era, 467. 

 This quite corresponds with the date of Let-ya-meng-nan being restored to his 



14 



